Subj : Re: Trains
To   : Mike Powell
From : Ky Moffet
Date : Fri Feb 24 2023 08:24:00

MIKE POWELL wrote:

> It does not help that the press reported the coal train as hauling "toxic
> chemicals."  :(

And jumped on the next three derails like it was something unusual. 
There are an average of 5 derails per day (tho declining). Most are just 
messy, not hazardous.

> Burning it off is bad, but letting more of it seep into the water table may
> have been worse.  I don't know enough about chemicals to be sure.

[puts on chemistry hat... many decades back, that was my major]

A single chemical can be dealt with -- add something it reacts with to 
become relatively inert (in this case, vent it through a hose into a 
tank of whatever would make the least toxic result; salt water probably 
would have worked), and haul away the precipitate.

But burning it creates all manner of nasties that you can't just deal 
with in bulk, and scatters the results far and wide. That's what the 
black smoke is -- incomplete burn products because it was combining with 
air to make random particulates. Basically similar to burning plastic.

> The thing a lot of folks don't realize is that, for most bulk transfers,
> each railcar replaces (IIRC) 3-4 semi trucks.  So, if the railroads didn't
> move the hazmat freight, those chemicals would be on a whole lot of trucks
> sharing the interstates and other roads with you and I.

The stats I just looked up:

There are 30-40 derail-related deaths every year.

There are about 4500 trucking-related deaths every year, about 3/4ths 
being the car in car-vs-truck.

That's probably a good indication of the relative frequency of accidents 
that matter to the populace at large.

Also, in pounds per mile, trains are 4x to 9x more efficient than trucks.
 þ RNET 2.10U: ILink: Techware BBS þ Hollywood, Ca þ www.techware2k.com

--- QScan/PCB v1.20a / 01-0462
 * Origin: ILink: CFBBS | cfbbs.no-ip.com | 856-933-7096 (454:1/1)

.